Wednesday, May 15, 2013

This Sunday, St. Paul's Episcopal Church at 199 Carroll Street will host a talk on climate change and global warming. Keith Edwards, a parishioner of St. Paul’s, who attended a seminar last year given by Al Gore and his organization The Climate Reality Project, will speak about this very important issue.

Here is further information on the event:

Keith Edwards to Speak on Global Warming and Climate Change This Sunday

Sunday, May 19 at 12:30 pm. in St Paul’s Church

in the Rectory Library

Our planet is heating up, and carbon pollution is to blame. Despite overwhelming international scientific consensus on climate change, the global community still lacks the resolve to implement any meaningful solutions. Climate change is already happening, and it has entered our daily lives.Keith Edwards, a parishioner of St. Paul’s is also a member of the Leadership Corps for the Climate Reality Project, an organization devoted to saving the planet. In 2012, he attended their conference that was given by former Vice President of the U.S., Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and Chairman of the Climate Reality Project Al Gore.

6 comments:

Are people really still listening to Al Gore? He's a snake oil salesman for Christs sake! Still listening to the eco-propaganda we've been guilted into believing? Absurd!

Now I get that the earth is heating up, I'm not disputing that, but the earth has been heating up naturally since the temperature has been recorded due to a variety of natural factors. Carbon footprint you say, humans produce, at our worst, less than 1% of the carbon emissions on the planet. Volcanoes are responsible for most of it. Should we extinguish them because they're not green? Really do some research on global warming before you buy into it. A comical view on the crap was done by Penn & Teller on a show called Bull5hit and it was fantastic please give it a watch, it's really informative.

Yes as I said Al Gore is a snake oil salesman. He is making money spreading the fear and guilting people into buying carbon credits among other things.

No, Penn and Teller are not climate scientists but nor do they claim to be. They have no interest in either side of the argument and they're funny as hell.

Grist.org??? Really? C'mon now there are plenty of semi-credible sources you could have chosen from. Grist is a self interested site that make money (non profits still pay the employees). The whole site is dedicated to the "green" movement. It was founded by chip giller who used to be the editor of grenwire. The man has made a career of this so he is far from impartial. Consider your sources bully.

I tried to take a light comical route here but you brought up science so here goes, hope you're ready for some light reading :)

I could point you to opposing views all day long with far more credibility and maybe I will later. For now I'm saying that you just can't fall into the hysteria that is climate change. It's a naturally occurring thing that fluctuates over time. New studies are even suggesting sun spot activity has more to do with it than c02 gasses.

Basically The amount of c02 hasn't been in tune with the temperatures globally. This is an indisputable fact.

You quote 97 out of 100 scientists, well over a thousand scientists revealed that 64% do not believe that human activity is causing the planet to heat up. A mere 36% march to the mantra of cataclysmic warming, according to Forbes

Granted that the argument could be made that Forbes could have a stake in the pushing of an anti global warming agenda but what about the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)??

Please just Google "Climate Change reconsidered"

http://nipccreport.com/

I've read through a few of these reports and one of them even show that "CO2 concentrations - appears to actually be having a positive effect on the planet's trees and, by inference, much of the rest of the biosphere as well"

http://nipccreport.com/articles/2013/may/7may2013a2.html

Even one of the the extremest views on the matter feel that the government getting involved in "greenhouse gasses" has a political and financial stake in the scam. You see they make millions if not billions for the US by taxing these companies so why in the hell would they say otherwise.

Obama even said it in a nutshell

"So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that will get emitted"

Not that I personally buy into this 100% either but it would make sense no?

I could go on for days about this.

On another note, we always hear about Global warming and we need to fix this and stop global warming, but what exactly do you plan to do about it?

If the earth was damaged as bad as you claim then do you honestly think we can have some impact in repairing it? It's ignorant not to mention arrogant to think that we could fix the planet in any foreseeable amount of time if at all.

I know that's alot of info and thank you Katia for letting me post my views on the matter here. I used to think that PMFA was a liberal agenda blog, but you have proven me wrong by approving my comments to be published. Thanks so much

I linked to Grist because it stated things in layman’s terms. Did you even bother to read primary source the Grist post was based on? It’s a meta-analysis in Environmental Research Letters, a peer-reviewed journal, examining nearly 12,000 papers on “global warming/climate change” from the past 20 years. You can read the rest.

As for your story in Forbes, the author, James Taylor, has been criticized for completely misinterpreting and misrepresenting the entire study. The authors of the paper even responded in the comments section of the Forbes story pointing out how their work was misrepresented. The purpose of the study was to investigate the attitudes of the members of trade association of petroleum workers in Alberta, Canada. Should we be surprised by Taylor’s misleading column? I mean, he’s just the senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank that conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing, global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism. So he’s probably unbiased, right?

And how about that “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.” Fancy name…sounds credible, until you look at the 2011 Interim Report “Climate Change Reconsidered.” Turns out 9 out of the 11 authors (including all 3 lead authors) are on the payroll of The Heartland Institute (this is easily found out by searching their names on The Heartland Institute’s website).So you question the credibility of my source, yet you refer to mouthpieces of a lobbying organization. I think you should check your sources.

I think there are a number of ways in which to potentially stop and reverse human-caused climate change, from changing how we consume fuel/resources to geoengineering. Many of these solutions have not yet been devised, but I think it’s neither ignorant nor arrogant to think we can fix what we broke. Perhaps these developments will lead to the next innovation/industrial boom. Perhaps I’m optimistic, but I’m not going to just accept the inevitable like you.

This I believe is one of the main problems with this non issue. Both of us can shoot holes in the sources we read all day long. Believe what you will and if "saving the earth" makes you feel better, I'm all for it. Who am I to stand in the way of someones happiness, albeit misguided. Hopefully for your sake ignorance is bliss.

In years to come hopefully the indisputable truth will prevail along with the great recycling scam we're currently forced to pay for and participate in.

For others out there please just listen to both sides and decide for yourself. Don't just believe propaganda for the sake of going with the crowd. Use some common sense and really try to see the hidden agendas.